From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AD1C33CAE for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 05:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5185021556 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 05:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=sifive.com header.i=@sifive.com header.b="OxFJ5+uP" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5185021556 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sifive.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47x2K93kLtzDqMv for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:32:13 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=sifive.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::341; helo=mail-ot1-x341.google.com; envelope-from=zong.li@sifive.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sifive.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=sifive.com header.i=@sifive.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=OxFJ5+uP; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-ot1-x341.google.com (mail-ot1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::341]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47x11z0JgkzDqKb for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:33:55 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x341.google.com with SMTP id p8so7755923oth.10 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:33:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0SADaU9gu70a2Bm0Kanw0/QkZVrOHiIb+3LRKLBcUWk=; b=OxFJ5+uPpMQkwvT9Qje5xmITqR1pEl3memtQG8Of66iLLXIir/M+praEuySJUPpWqx B7k8EbjZfdkqQtjY7IOgRq/+bLOoJw0+Spj1+UCP9x0BoGO+r6hPIyQ9fl/tDsd1miBa RD7OyyUJkbYPcTYY11AR32jO97qb5LBnOc6cysWfFY761YIxTiErD/jyiKNnNneKy8Ek VJ8n3eNNluAdNyiiQrPSN050ayi1RvZbWNM07Dwfo+GwlQrh4LBz2p+loFt7Ezh9PzS5 hRO1OvgiH8Xrlt5JLkPpxi2yPu9JEOjmeygncihU08HnpWE6Bz4mej+gZFrOGt7W+9CS eUqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0SADaU9gu70a2Bm0Kanw0/QkZVrOHiIb+3LRKLBcUWk=; b=uPuRXPEJ3NjEKv6nruu+VjlNxuD9htxXKv7wPWZCeHuFnZZtRjzb2hF5RugchHn3q1 oSaonpZL4XvXENgVKbg/EpBIwoBmdHU3+6AKRfSj5OB67DGnxgZMov+NXhe0vT+UoF5N j9xyNIib1qV9Cou3rLsBr0M7p9e+q7pNkawnW6bN9dvskWjSeRdlOkSCBaBNoGQVV9gS ViwA4tSmNAvMkbxRSCSccutsqtpIOGFzXQBBsY0QQAAlshANEepRNeOhNtVPDaotuGmA 20AIoCsa/KDc43PEKzNnc9furqLbVdDe3RO+kXWj9Yre5Q8ejHnw5OBaVeARa3k/KFPV wlxg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXRqTjd2kb8dKghpR13Iqrqr/Ht2GjdbQWmncX7L/yC9j1xT6RU SaiF0Tb78bTsF8HwUZbjhUrM5EJzRG+rO2Fg1F7mcQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzKKJLKVTUSZcp0sj2AT+aiCvmTg5KUl6YAuMPe9/ClQhmL25Wu+pX1UtlR8rzIUjHdZZAxcUMMWVH9uWU1+Sw= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2c68:: with SMTP id f95mr12075160otb.33.1578890030841; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:33:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191018105657.4584ec67@canb.auug.org.au> <20191028110257.6d6dba6e@canb.auug.org.au>

In-Reply-To: From: Zong Li Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:33:40 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree To: Alexandre Ghiti Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:30:29 +1100 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stephen Rothwell , daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt , ast@kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:31 PM Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > > > On 1/10/20 7:20 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:28:17 PST (-0800), alexandre@ghiti.fr wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell > >>> wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > >>>> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > >>>> > >>>> WARNING: 2 bad relocations > >>>> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start > >>>> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end > >>>> > >>>> Introduced by commit > >>>> > >>>> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") > >>> This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. > >>> > >>> > >> I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new > >> relocations for > >> those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following > >> that commit. > >> > >> I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 > >> kernel. > >> > >> Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit > >> 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact > >> to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. > >> > >> I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected > >> for riscv for > >> a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to > >> zero ? > >> > >> I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this > >> better than I do. > > > > Can you give me a pointer to your tree and how to build a relocatable > > kernel? > > Weak undefined symbols have the absolute value 0, > > > So according to you the 2 new relocations R_RISCV_64 are normal and > should not > be modified at runtime right ? > > > > but the kernel is linked at > > an address such that 0 can't be reached by normal means. When I added > > support > > to binutils for this I did it in a way that required almost no code -- > > essetially I just stopped dissallowing x0 as a possible base register > > for PCREL > > relocations, which results in 0 always being accessible. I just > > wanted to get > > the kernel to build again, so I didn't worry about chasing around all the > > addressing modes. The PIC/PIE support generates different relocations > > and I > > wouldn't be surprised if I just missed one (or more likely all) of them. > > > > It's probably a simple fix, though I feel like every time I say that > > about the > > linker I end up spending a month in there... > > You can find it here: > > https://github.com/AlexGhiti/riscv-linux/tree/int/alex/riscv_relocatable_v1 > > Zong fixed the bug introduced by those 2 new relocations and everything > works > like a charm, so I'm not sure you have to dig in the linker :) > I'm not quite familiar with btf, so I have no idea why there are two weak symbols be added in 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") as well, According on relocation mechanism, maybe it is unnecessary to handle weak undefined symbol at this time, because there is no substantive help to relocate the absolute value 0. I just simply ignore the non-relative relocation types to make processing can go forward, and it works for me based on v5.5-rc5. > Alex >